Was The Killing of Bin Laden in Cold Blood? Would it Matter?

Pakistani security investigators are claiming that the killing of Osama Bin Laden, his aides, and his son was “cold blooded.” These officials who investigated after the raid allege that no one within the compound fired a shot because they were unarmed.

On this, I claim bullshit. At the least, Pakistani intelligence looks incompetent for allowing Bin Laden to hide in Pakistan right under their noses, in a Colonel Klink state of obliviousness . At worst, they were complicit with Bin Laden and protected him. Either way, they are working overtime to cover their collective asses.

However, the question is raised: what if the killing during the raid was in cold blood? What if no fight was given? Does this change anything?

Bin-Laden is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents; his actions have changed the course of several countries, most noticeably ours.

Let’s not bullshit ourselves. A Geneva convention mandated trial was never and option. For almost 13 years, Osama was a dead man walking. No less than 3 Presidents vowed publicly to make that happen.

I am morally opposed to capital punishment. I feel that killing for any reason undermines our basic humanity. However, I find myself in a moral grey area in this instance. Sometimes, a person comes along who is so evil, that our only recourse is to put that person down like a rabid animal. Bin-Laden would be one of those people.

Yet, I still struggle with the fact that there may be the slightest chance Bin-Laden and his aides may have been killed without ever putting up a fight. How does one deal with the murder of a murderer?

I’ll tell you how: Dismiss the claims of Pakistani intelligence as a game of political CYA. Keep thinking that Bin Laden and company went down with guns a blazing. Remember where you were, and your reaction to the horrors of 9-11. Think about all those families who were left without fathers and mothers,brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.

That’s what I plan on doing. Otherwise I think that my very soul would be torn apart via a moral game of tug-o-war within me, if it was a stone cold assassination.

Osama is dead and sleeping with the fishes. Justice is ours. I think I am happy to leave it at that, and not look any deeper.

I’m not content to let this go in the slightest. I don’t understand how this would effectively cover Afghanistan’s ass in any way, nor do I ever think it’s OK to ignore the Geneva Convention, the United Nations or our own laws that guarantee the right to a trial and are NOT supposed to be waived in time of war or on foreign soil. I don’t give a fuck HOW menacing the person is. Lock ’em the fuck up and give them those things we have guaranteed through the law.

The U.S. has used 9/11 as an excuse to violate our own laws, constitution, etc. for long enough!!! I first day they began to do this (uuuh…. let me think 9/11/2001) made it too long in my eyes. I want my fucking rights and I can’t sit by and hypocritically say some deserve them while others don’t. IT ISN’T SUPPOSED TO WORK THAT WAY!

Call me unpatriotic. Call me a traitor. Lock me up for expressing my opinion, but last time I checked, that’s one of the few RIGHTS we have left in “America”.

“We tracked him down, we raided the house, we chased his ass upstairs, we cornered him, and then we blew his f’ing head off.

Case closed. Refer to Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” A “reprisal” means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forced used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.

I do believe the ambiguity of my post has lead me to feel as if I need to clarify a few things:

1- I agree with Carving out a Voice’s position 100%; that’s why I’m left in a position of uneasiness if what Pakistani investigators are saying is true. At this point I’m choosing to believe that the Seals went in with the intent of apprehending Osama,and killed him in a fire fight. If the converse is true, then I’m left with the moral dilemma I talked about in my post.

2- I don’t believe that the Constitution provides for cold hard assassination, regardless of what it says about reprisal, or the severity of the offense committed against this country.

3- In order to understand the Pakistani government, we have to take under consideration it’s history. Pakistan and Afghanistan is a region that historically has constantly been under the rule of someone else. Whether it be the Chinese, Persians,British, etc, the people there are naturally resistant to outside interference, and right now that interference is us. Their government is caught between a rock and a hard place; cooperate with the U.S in the fight against terrorism, and reap the reward of funding for the military and aid, or placate the anti-occupation public and have all monies cut off. It’s natural for them to try to play both sides of the fence.

4- My ambiguous position in this post is based on the assumption that everything is as it seems; That Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9-11, and that he was killed in an above board fire fight. My gut and my conspiratorial sense of logic tells me that everything is not as it seems, and that there are more nefarious workings than what we have been lead to believe for the past 10 years.

However, that’s going to have to wait for another post, at another time 🙂